70Z04724RPCI0002 Amendment 007.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

NATIONAL MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (NMACC III) POOL 3; WLB MOORING AND

STRUCTURAL UPGRADES, BASE HONOLULU

See continuation page(s).

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

Facilities Design & Construction Center 5505 Robin Hood Rd, STE K Norfolk, VA 23513

70Z04724RPCI0002

01/31/2024

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11/30/2023

1 46

X

This amendment is issued to incorporate the following:

NO ADDITIONAL RFIs WILL BE ACCEPTED/ANSWERED. OFFERORS ARE INSTRUCTED

TO PROVIDE THEIR BEST PROPOSAL BASED ON THE TASK ORDER ANNOUNCEMENT

AND ALL AMENDMENTS.

I. Proposal Submission Instructions:

Proposal due date has been extended from February 6, 2024 to February 13, 2024.

II. Specifications

RFI#244

RFP SPECIFICATION 01800-1.8.7.1, ADD:

1.8.7.1.1 To ensure the WLB mooring configuration can be met, the Wharf G extension shall incorporate a WLB mooring dolphin pile with an access catwalk from Wharf G, as shown on RFP Drawings. The pile shall be a steel or composition steel pile type topped with a mooring bollard to a minimum platform measuring 5-ft x 5-ft (minimum). The actual design shall be determined by the DOR and shall have a design life of 50 years. The access catwalk shall be a steel frame structure. The gangway shall have a minimum clear width of 5-ft. The DOR shall be responsible for the length, as lengths are shown only for representation. Gangway shall have continuous handrails that are a minimum of 30 inches above the walking surface, but not to exceed 38 inches. Height of the structural top rail shall be a minimum of 42 inches above the deck surface. Gangway handrails shall be fully closed pipe and OSHA compliant for rail height, size, and extensions. The deck shall be galvanized, open serrated bar grating. Contact between dissimilar metals shall be avoided. Where potential for galvanic corrosion exists, the dissimilar materials shall be isolated from direct contact by use of suitable non-conducting insulators or bushings. Gangway live loading shall be a uniform live load of 40 psf. Gangway shall include a concentrated 300 lb point load anywhere along the length. Gangway end connections at the platform shall be designed to withstand a lateral wind load of 65 psf. The DOR shall submit calculations including minimum the flexural, shear, and torsional stresses induced in truss and floor members for live and dead loads. Check global and local deflections against specified criteria. Truss member design shall include analyzing top chord buckling.

Design calculations shall be prepared and stamped by a licensed professional engineer.

Maximum midspan deflection under live load shall not exceed L/240.

AMENDMENT ATTACHMENTS:

a. Questions and Answers

b. USCG Base Honolulu Preliminary Draft EA_013024

END OF AMENDMENT

RFI No.

Date

Submitted Pg Section Paragraph QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

POSTED ON

AMEND NO.

1 12/13/2023 Amendment 1 provides the drawings in PDF. Would the Government please provide the drawings in CADD?

CADD drawings are not available. 005

2 12/13/2023 13 3 1 RFP Section III states “Questions shall be received no later than January 19, 2023.” Please confirm that the deadline for questions is January 19, 2024?

See amendment language 004

3 12/13/2023 14 4 1

RFP Section IV states that drawings can be submitted on 11x17 inch format. Please confirm that the milestone schedule to be submitted in response to Subfactor 5.2 can also be in 11x17 inch format?

See amendment language 005

4 12/13/2023 15 6 a.1

RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Factor 4: Safety, Paragraph a.1 asks Offerors to submit DART Rate data for the “five (5) previous complete calendar years’ (CY 2022, CY 2021, CY 2020, CY 2019, and CY 2018).” Given that proposals are currently due in February of 2024 and CY 2023 will be completed, would the Government instead wish to see CY 2023, CY 2022, CY 2021, CY 2020, and CY 2019 data?

See amendment language 005

5 12/13/2023 15 6 a.2

1. RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Factor 4: Safety, Paragraph a.2 asks Offerors to submit TRIR Rate data for the “five (5) previous complete calendar years’ (CY 2022, CY 2021, CY 2020, CY 2019, and CY 2018).” Given that proposals are

See amendment language 005

6 12/13/2023 16 6 5.1.a

RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Factor 5: Technical Solution, Subfactor 5.1: Conceptual Design and Experience Performing Pier Construction has conflicting page limitation information. The first sentence states: Narrative shall be no more than ten (10) single-sided pages.” However, subparagraph

(a) – the only subparagraph for this section – states “Discussion shall be no more than three (3) pages.” We respectfully request that the Government consider a 10 single-sided page limit for Subfactor 5.1, and update this subfactor accordingly.

See amendment language 005

7 12/13/2023 16 4 5.1.a RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Factor 5: Technical Solution, Subfactor 5.1: Conceptual Design and Experience

See amendment language 005

8 12/13/2023 17 4 7

RFP Section IV states: “The technical and price proposal shall be separate attachments.” However, RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Price Proposal states: “The Contractor must submit a complete price proposal form with the technical proposal.”

Please confirm that the technical proposal should not include any pricing information per Section IV.

The technical proposal should not include any pricing in accordance with the RFP.

REFERENCE

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY/REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

9 12/13/2023 15 6 Factor 4. a.

RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Factor 4: Safety, subparagraph a states: “joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture.” RFP Section VI “Basis of Evaluation,” Non-Price Factor 4: Safety provides charts that correlate DART rate and TRIR rate to level of risk. Since a joint venture Offeror will be submitting two or more DART and TRIR rates for each year (one for each contractor who is part of the joint venture), it could be possible for one member firm to have a different risk level than the other.

How will the Government evaluate and assign risk levels for joint venture Offerors? For example, will they be averaged between both Offerors for each year?

In accordance with the RFP, please look at page 18 Non-Price Factor 4:

"The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TRIR rate, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation."

10 12/13/2023 16 6 Factor 4. a.

RFP Section VI “Non-Price Factors,” Factor 4: Safety, subparagraph 3.d states “The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to four (4) single-sided pages.”

However, RFP Section VI “Basis of Evaluation,” Factor 4:

Safety, subparagraph 3.d states “The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.” Please confirm that the page limit is four (4) single-sided pages for the technical approach to safety.

See amendment language 005

11 12/13/2023 19 6 2.d

RFP Section VI “Basis of Evaluation, Factor 4: Safety, subparagraph 2.d provides a risk chart. This section pertains to the TRIR, however the chart heading says “DART Rate.” Please confirm that the data presented in the chart under this subparagraph is for the TRIR and not the DART.

See amendment language 005

12 12/14/2023 Amendment 003

Amendment 003 changed the start time of the visit to 10am local time. What time is the site visit anticipated to end? The original form provided in Amendment 002 showed a time frame of 0800-

The site visit will be from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM on 19 Dec 23.

13 12/14/2023 Amendment 003 Do you require photocopies of the ID's or are the ID numbers sufficient. Are two forms of identification required?

One form of real identification will be sufficient. Examples of a real identification include a state issued drivers license or passport that can be matched to the name provided on the Base Access List.

14 12/15/2023 17 Factor 5

Technical Solution

Subfactor 5.2

The first part of Subfactor 5.2 states: "Teaming agreements or letters of commitment do not count towards page count."

Subfactor 5.2 then goes on to only reference teaming agreements ("Note: Teaming agreements and schedule do not count towards the page limitation" and "Submit teaming agreements, if not submitted during Phase I...").

Please confirm that we can submit either Teaming Agreement(s) or Letters of Commitment, and that both document types won't count against the page limit for Subfactor 5.2.

Teaming agreements/Letters of Commitments are used as interchangeable terms.

In accordance with the RFP, "teaming agreements or letters of commitment do not count towards page count"

15 12/15/2023 16, 19

Section VI. Non- Price Factors – Factor 4: Safety and Section VI.

Basis of

Subsection 3.d.

Section VI. Non-Price Factors – Factor 4: Safety – Subsection 3.d. states the Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to four (4) single-sided pages. Section VI. Basis of Evaluation – Subsection 3.d. states the Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or

See amendment language 005

16 12/15/2023 16

Section VI. Non- Price Factors –

Factor 5:

Technical Solution

Subfactor 5.1 and 5.1.a

Section VI. Non-Price Factors – Factor 5: Technical Solution – Subfactor 5.1. states narrative shall be no more than ten (10) single-sided pages. Subfactor 5.1.a. states discussion shall be no more than three (3) pages. Pleases clarify if the ten (10) pages was intended to cover the entirety of Factor 5 Technical Solution, and if one (1) page is reserved for general introductions as each of the subfactors limits the discussion to three (3) pages, or if the ten (10) should be corrected to three (3).

See amendment language 005

17 12/15/2023 16,17

Section VI. Non- Price Factors –

Factor 5:

Technical Solution

Subfactor 5.1.a.

Section VI. Non-Price Factors – Factor 5: Technical Solution – Subfactor 5.1.a. calls for conceptual plans showing layout of all required berthing(s) and construction support facilities. Please confirm layout plan does not count towards page count and can follow the 11x17 inches format specified for Drawings.

See amendment language;

Additionally, in accordance with the RFP, page 16 "conceptual plans do not count towards the page limitation.

18 12/15/2023 17

Section VI. Non- Price Factors –

Factor 5:

Technical Solution

Subfactor 5.2.a

Section VI. Non-Price Factors – Factor 5: Technical Solution – Subfactor 5.2.a. calls for a milestone schedule. Please confirm milestone schedule does not count towards page count and can follow the 11x17 inches format specified for Drawings.

See amendment language

Additionally, in accordance with the RFP, page 17 "Teaming agreements and schedule do not count towards the page limitation."

19 12/19/2023

Attachment I - 2015 Final

Environmental Assessment

Can the USCG provide the Biological Assessment and concurrence letter from NMFS for ESA species for this project?

(MAW) Consultation and BA prep is currently underway, and a Draft BA should be available for reference by bidders in February 2024. The concurrence letter would be provided ata later date when issued by NMFS.

20 12/19/2023

Attachment I - 2015 Final

Environmental Assessment

Has the ESA consultation been updated to include species listed since the Supplemental EA was published in 2016?

(MAW) Consultation and BA prep is currently underway, and a Draft BA should be available for reference by bidders in February 2024. The concurrence letter would be provided ata later date when issued by NMFS.

21 12/19/2023

Attachment I - 2015 Final

Environmental Assessment &

2016 Final Supplemental Environmental

Assessment

The preferred berthing alternative in the 2015 EA states that, “Under this alternative, there would be no in-water work (e.g., pier extension, pile driving, etc.) in the vicinity of Berths F or G." While the 2016 SEA addresses in-water work and fender improvements for Berths A – D, it does not address Berths F or G. Was there a supplemental FONSI or other NEPA documentation regarding the decision to extend Berth G and drive piles in this area?

(MAW) The new EA is under preparation, which incorporates elements of the 2015 EA, and a public Draft EA is expected in March 2023. A preliminary Draft will be provided to bidders when available.

22 12/19/2023

Attachment I - 2015 Final

Environmental Assessment

If the response to the previous question was negative, does the USCG believe that supplemental analysis is necessary and, if so, what support for that would be required of the contractor?

(MAW) The new EA is under preparation, which incorporates elements of the 2015 EA, and a public Draft EA is expected in March 2023. A preliminary Draft will be provided to bidders when available.

23 12/19/2023 45108

Attachment I - 2015 Final

Environmental Assessment

The 2015 EA states on page 7-1, “All construction activities would be conducted from the shoreside, using a crane with sufficient reach to reduce anchor and line-related impacts to fish and wildlife resources." Although the 2016 SEA does not include this language in Sect on 7, it does not explicitly describe vessel-based work during construct on (except briefly y in terms of cumulate ve impacts). Does the USCG consider that the use of barge during construct on would be allowed under the 2016

SEA?

(MAW) The new EA is under preparation, which incorporates elements of the 2015 EA, and a public Draft EA is expected in March 2023. A preliminary Draft will be provided to bidders when available. We expect that barge based construction practices would be allowable under the 2024 EA.

24 12/19/2023

Given the embedment depth for piles mandated by the RFP instruct ons (100ft for Wharf G, 80ft forfl oat), a very large crane will be required to construct this project. This would require an analysis of the bulkhead strength to ensure that a crane can operate safely in the laydown area allocated to the Contractor. If the response to Questi on 5 is negate ve, will the USCG consider allowing a supplement of the NEPA assessments to allow marine-based equipment to lower the cost of the project ?

(MAW) The new EA is under preparation, which incorporates elements of the 2015 EA, and a public Draft EA is expected in March 2023. A preliminary Draft will be provided to bidders when available. We expect that barge based construction practices would be allowable under the 2024 EA.

25 12/19/2023

Under Secti on I: General Requirements, Descript on of Work for Base Bid Item 0001 it says, “ completedemoliti on/disposal of the Stati on Annex ( 2712 GSF ) which presumably is a building but the demolition on drawings do no show this work.

Need more information. Cannot find any mention of annex demolition in section 1800 1.9 Demolition (ESC)

26 12/19/2023 Please provide the pile driving logs for the exist ng Wharf G and the exist ng guide piles at Floati ng Pier F.

Pile driving records for the existing Wharf G and Floating Pier F are unavailable.

27 12/19/2023 The 2015 ESA says that “ coral reef monitoring” is required during construct on. Will the USCG perform this work at their

(MAW) The costs of all environmental monitoring, oversight, and mitigation

28 12/19/2023 The 2015 ESA says a full depth turbidity curtain is required surrounding the in-water work area. Please confi rmthis requirement.

(MAW) New ESA consultation and BA preparation are ongoing. However, based on discussions with NMFS, bidders should expect that turbidity curtain installation would still be required.

29 12/19/2023

The 2015 ESA says Protected Species monitoring will be required during pile driving acti viti es. Will The USCGperform the Protected Species Monitoring or is the Desing-Builder to include this work in their Price?

(MAW) The costs of all environmental monitoring, oversight, and mitigation associated with is project are expected to be covered by the D/B contractor unless otherwise stated in the RFP.

30 12/19/2023

Can the Government provide original design drawings for both Wharf G and floating Berth F. The drawing provide in attachments are not enough detail to understand the existing dock structure for determining construction loading or connection of new fendering systems.

The requested original design drawings for both Wharf G and floating Berth F are not available. Load ratings for Wharf G are noted within Attachment A - 2012 Waterfront Inspection Report (page 36).

31 12/19/2023

Can any Geotech investigation report be provided that are associated with the original Wharf G construction.

Geotechnical materials provided with the RFP are fairly limited and located far away from this site.

The requested Geotechnical Investigation report for the original Wharf G construction is not available.

32 12/19/2023

Can the Government provide photos of the electrical equipment in the power building. Can the government provide photos of open panels such as “Switch G” that service this facility.

Government cannot provide requested photos. Contractor will be responsible for surveying the construction project as needed to complete design. (ESC)

33 12/19/2023 Can the Government provide the original design drawings for the concrete bulkhead adjacent to Wharf G?

The requested original design drawings for Wharf G/concrete bulkhead is not available.

34 12/19/2023 The Existing Wharf G that remains has spalled concrete and cracking in the Superstructure: Does the scope of works for this RFP include renovation of the part of Wharf G that is to remain?

Repair of previously identified defects of Wharf G are not included within the project scope.

35 12/19/2023 Do the existing Float Piles ( Octagonal Concrete Piles) have to be fully extracted during demolition or can they be cut-off at mudline?

Refer to RFP 01900-1.91.2; 'The Contractor shall remove all six (6) piles.

Piles that refuse removal, may be cut off 3-ft below the mudline elevation.'

36 12/19/2023

Reference Drawing C101: During the site visit it was noted that a new transformer pad and bollards appears to encroach into the Contractor Laydown are currently shown on drawing C101.

Cannot provide as-builds for this pad and bollards. Existing contractor laydown area will not be extended for this project. (ESC)

37 12/19/2023

The 2015 ESA says work will be accomplished for the Shore and not with Marine Equipment.

Please clarify the following:

Can a Spud Crane barge be used at the site to accomplish the work?

Can a crane barge be used at the site if it uses the existing Wharf G to moor against and has no spuds or anchors in the water?

Can a materials barge be brought to site and moor against the Existing Wharf G?

(MAW) The new EA is under preparation, which incorporates elements of the 2015 EA, and a public Draft EA is expected in March 2023. A preliminary Draft will be provided to bidders when available. We expect that barge based construction practices would be allowable under the 2024 EA.

38 12/19/2023

Reference Section 1200, Design Build Progress Payments, Paras 1.7 and 1.8.

Para 1.7 says no progress payments for material offsite.

Para 1.8 says materials received and stored may be paid at Contracting Officers discretion.

Please clarify the following.

Will progress payments for material received on site but not installed be allowed? This is a big issue due to the floats.

The Floats, precast units and piles will be all be made offsite, and vendors will expect to be paid upon delivery to the Contractors offsite staging area . Will the USCG allow materials received the contractors offsite staging area to be paid if the Contractor shows evidence that the materials are secured and insured ?

Will progress payments for materials be allowed during the offsite fabrication of the floats?

Will progress payments for material received on site but not installed be allowed? Yes, "Although Section I contract clause 52.232-5 does not require payment for materials received but not installed, the Contracting Officer may consider requests for, and may authorize payment for the cost of the material based on the lesser of the following:

(1) The total value of all invoices submitted for the activity; and (2) The value listed in the material total cost field. In order for requests for payment to be considered, the material shall be per the approved submittal, on site, and properly stored or protected."

Will the USCG allow materials received the contractors offsite staging area to be paid if the Contractor shows evidence that the materials are secured and insured ? No, in accordance with section 1200, Design Build Progress Payments, paragraph 1.7 "Requests for payment for materials stored offsite will not be approved"

39 1/2/2024 5 Solicitation

Section I. General Requirements

Disclosure of Magnitude states that "the contract price limitation for contract award is approximately $14 Million." We have become aware that $14 Million is also listed as the contract price limitation for the Rehabilitate Waterfront MSU USCG Cleveland Harbor, which is the Seed Project for the NMACC Pool 2 Phase II solicitation. Please clarify whether $14 Million is correct for Base Honolulu WLB Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades.

$14M is correct for Base Honolulu WLB Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades.

40 1/2/2024 16, 19

Solicitation Section VI. Non-

Price Factors;

Section VI. Basis of Evaluation

For Factor 4.3, "Technical Approach to Safety," Solicitation page 16 limits this section to 4 pages; Solicitation page 19 limits the section to 2 pages. Please clarify which is correct.

See amendment language 005

41 1/2/2024 17

Solicitation Section VI Non- Price Factors, 5.3

Environmental Compliance

We have studied Attachment I which were included with the original DoD SAFE download. As part of our research into Environmental Compliance and Permitting requirements for this seed project, we respectfully request permission to directly contact the appropriate permitting agencies (i.e. Department of

(MAW) New ESA consultation and BA preparation are ongoing. The USCG can neither direct nor restrict bidders from contacting regulatory agencies. Be advised that Agencies would likely be

42 1/4/2024 Please provide as-built drawings, pile driving records, and maintenance records for the existing Wharf G, including utilities info.

The requested data is not available. 005

43 1/4/2024 Please provide as-built drawings, pile driving records, and maintenance records for the existing floating dock Wharf F, including Utilities info.

The requested data is not available. 005

44 1/4/2024 Please provide as-built drawings for the existing aluminum gangway from Wharf G to F.

The requested data is not available. 005

45 1/4/2024 Please provide as-built drawings, driving records, and maintenance records for the existing bulkhead/seawall that fronts wharf F

The requested data is not available. 005

46 1/4/2024

Please provide as-built drawings on the revetment/riprap in front of the seawall along wharf G an F, including information on stone sizing, and section dimensions to determine the thickness and extent of the revetment.

The requested data is not available. 005

47 1/4/2024 Please confirm that the existing floating dock to be removed becomes the contractor’s property for disposal or reuse off the project.

Confirmed. 005

48 1/4/2024 Please confirm the contractor is allowed to cut the existing wharf F piles at mudline/sea bottom in lieu of removing them entirely.

Refer to RFP Specification 01800- 1.9.1.2.

49 1/4/2024 Please confirm that jetting for pile removal or installation will be allowed.

The Contractor shall be responsible for means and methods for pile removal and installation.

50 1/4/2024 Please confirm that biological protection and relocation, particularly corals, is not in the scope of this project and will be handled by others if required.

(MAW) Coral/invertebrate protection and relocation will be required under this project. This is the subject of ongoing consultations with NMFS. The costs of all environmental monitoring, oversight, and mitigation associated with is project are expected to be covered by the D/B contractor unless otherwise stated in the RFP.

51 1/4/2024 Please confirm there are no environmental work windows which restrict the seasons in which construction can be performed.

(MAW) Consultation with NMFS and other agencies is ongoing, but no restrictive work windows have been identified. Bidders should assume that no such work restriction time windows would apply.

52 1/4/2024 Please confirm the days/hours of construction permitted on the project.

RFP section 01110 1.9 "Work Hours" stipulates the days/hours of the week that work is permitted. Contractors are reminded to fully read the RFP before asking questions that are already answered in the RFP.

53 1/4/2024 Will this project be impacted by RIMPAC exercises? No 005

54 1/4/2024 Is the existing aluminum gangway meant to be reused on the project?

No (ESC) 005

55 1/4/2024 At the job walk, it was mentioned that wharf deck infill between the seawall and wharf G extension- represented as an option on the drawings- was to be avoided due to coral shading concerns.

Please see Section 01110 Part 1.1 for the scope of work of this project (ESC)

56 1/4/2024 Is it acceptable for the design to seismically isolate the new wharf from the old?

Yes. 005

57 1/4/2024 Please confirm no upgrades or repairs are required on the existing wharf G.

Confirmed. 005

58 1/4/2024 The scope of work mentions the demolition of an “annex”.

Please indicated where information about the Annex can be found, including any hazmat surveys and as-builts.

See RFI #25 005

59 1/4/2024 Basis of evaluation factor 4 instructions states that the technical approach to safety narrative is limited to two pages. However, See amendment language 005

61 1/4/2024 What is the expected timeline for RFI responses?

To be determined, RFI responses will be provided via amendment when available.

62 1/4/2024 Can the government provide “As-Builts” and pile driving info/data for the monopile mooring dolphin located on the North end of Wharf “E”?

The requested data is not available. 005

63 1/5/2024

We have become aware that the Seed Project for the NMACC Pool 2 Phase II solicitation (Rehabilitate Waterfront MSU USCG Cleveland Harbor) includes preliminary specifications which will guide the design and estimating process.

We urgently, but respectfully, request a similar document as pertains to the Honolulu WLB Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades, USCG NMACC Pool 3 Phase II West Seed Project.

See attachment 006

64 1/9/2024 Specification

Section 1.8.5.3 and 1.8.5.4

Per the Specification Section 1.8.5.3 and 1.8.5.4, acceptable rebar for concrete reinforcement is limited to Epoxy Coated or Black Steel. To meet the design life requirements of 75-year service life, can other corrosion resistant reinforcement products be utilized such as ASTM A1094 (Galvabar) or ASTM A1035 (ChomX)? Increasing the allowable reinforcement material types can help reduce overall costs

No substitutions will be authorized. 005

65 1/9/2024 Specification

Section 1.4.1.1

Per the Specification Section 1.4.1.1 Topographic Survey, a topographic survey was completed in 2017. This survey drawing was not included in the attachments provided with the RFP. Can the USCG provided the 2017 NSC Homeport At USCG Base Honolulu survey drawings. If this survey cannot be provided, can the USCG provide an existing top of deck elevation for Wharf G?

The 2017 Topographic Survey does not extend into nor does it cover the project area.

66 1/10/2024 16 or 19 of 21 Factor 4: Safety

3. Technical Approach to

Safety

P. 16 of 21 of the RFP states "The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to four (4) single-sided pages.

Information beyond the referenced page limit will not be considered."

P. 19 of 21 of the RFP states "The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered."

How many single-sided pages is the safety narrative limited to?

See amendment language 005

67 1/10/2024 16 of 21 Factor 5:

Technical Solution

Subfactor 5.1

P. 16 of 21 of the RFP states, "Page Limit: Narrative shall be no more than ten (10) single-sided pages. Conceptual Site Design does not count towards page count."

P. 16 of 21 of the RFP also states under a) , "Page Limit:

Discussion shall be no more than three (3) pages."

How many single-sided pages is Subfactor 5.1 limited to?

See amendment language 005

68 1/10/2024 16 of 21 Factor 5:

Technical Solution

- How many single-sided pages is Factor 5 limited to? See amendment language 005

69 1/10/2024 97

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.8.11.2.1 Section 01800, part 1.8.11.2 indicates, "… three (6) 30-ton single bollards…" Please confirm between 3 and 6.

See amendment language 005

70 1/10/2024 88

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.8.1

Attachment D, appears to be a single sheet with limited plan and section information for Wharf G which was excerpted from a conditions survey; similar to that contained in the Appendix A 2012 waterfront inspection report. Both the 2012 and 2022 waterfront inspection reports provided in Attachment A repeatedly refer to "as-built drawings" used to describe (limited) technical features of the existing dock. The 2012 report also makes reference to "… the 2008 report…" Is it possible for these referenced as-built drawings, as well as the 2008 report to be provided as part of this RFP...?

The requested data is not available. 005

71 1/10/2024 88

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.8.1.1

As indicated in the RFP, the 2012 waterfront inspection report provided in Attachment A indicates that the (typical) existing Wharf G bents were designed for berthing and mooring loads of 9.7k and 8.1k, respectively. The RFP requires bollards ranging from 20-tons to 60-tons capacity for the completed Wharf G.

For bidding purposes, shall bidders consider the existing Wharf G structure adequate as-is to resist the anticipated bollard and/or cleat loading, without structural evaluation and/or upgrades...?

Yes. 005

72 1/10/2024 86

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.5.5

The successful bidder will responsible for establishing seismic design criteria for the site under consideration. For bidding purposes, shall bidders consider the Wharf G structure adequate as-is to resist anticipated earthquake loading, without structural evaluation and/or upgrades…?

Yes. 005

73 1/10/2024 6

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01110

1.1 Regarding item (B) under "Base Bid", for bidding purposes, is it acceptable for the new Wharf G extension to be structurally isolated from the existing Wharf G…?

Seismic isolation code requirements shall be determined by the DOR. If code allows the new wharf to be structurally isolated, then Government has not objections.

74 1/10/2024 79

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.4.1.2

Section 01800, part 1.4.1.2 indicates "Hydrographic Survey (NIC)." Is an existing hydrographic survey available as part of the RFP…? Is a new hydrographic survey required as a part the proposed project…?

RFP Specification 01800-1.4.1.2 identifies that the Hydrographic survey is NIC or Not-In-Contract. The Hydrographic data requested is not available. The RFP does not require a new hydrographic survey.

75 1/10/2024 87

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.5.6

Section 01800, Part 1.5 indicates that for bidding purposes, 100-ft pile foundation embedment and 80-ft supporting pile embedment should be assumed for the pier extension and floating pier, respectively. The same section indicates that the "Contractor shall bear all costs of the actual foundation." Please confirm whether the Government plans to negotiate with the winning bidder if actual conditions would result in foundation costs exceeding those associated with the above-mandated bid assumptions.

Yes. If the pile foundation embedment exceeds the length established in 01800- 1.5, then the Contractor is entitle to submit a claim for the costs in excess of those stipulated in the RFP.

76 1/10/2024 4

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Sections 01800;

01802

1.10; 2.7

RFP Attachment F includes hydrant pressure test data. Section 01800, part 1.10 table of contents indicates "Fire Protection (NOT USED." Section 01802, part 2.7 indicates, "Fire Protection Design - Not Applicable." Please confirm that there are no new or existing fire protection engineering requirements in the scope for this project.

Confirmed. 005

77 1/10/2024 88

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.8.1

Section 4 (Discussion and Recommendations) of "Biological Assessment, Underwater Biological Survey for WLB Mooring and Structural Pier Upgrades, USCG Base Honolulu, Hawaii" (DRAFT II, 22June2023) indicates that a shading analysis should be undertaken "to ensure that the new berths themselves, as well as ships moored to them do not create shaded areas off Berth F." (p.12) Note that the geometry of the proposed improvements are constrained by the existing dock and proposed vessels. For bidding purposes, should bidders assume either (a) that such a shading analysis will yield results which do not require removal and transplantation of existing coral, or (b) that some assumed minimum amount of coral removal and transplantation should be included in the bid...?

(MAW) Bidders should assume that (protected species) coral removal and transplantation would be required in all areas impacted by shading, heavy siltation/fill, or physical impact.

78 1/10/2024 120

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.18.2.1

The RFP includes that "The USCG is preparing another Supplemental EA… which will be documented and incorporated into this RFP as they are completed." For bidding purposes, in the absence of the above-referenced additional Supplemental EA, should bidders assume that the new Supplemental EA will not substantively affect bids...?

(MAW) The revised EA will primarily validate information and conclusions in the 2015/2016 EAs, and is not expected to materially affect bids for this project.

79 1/10/2024 101

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

1.9.1.1.1.4

At Fixed Pier G, RFP indicates "The Contractor shall demolish all utility stations (electrical, water, and sewer) and appurtenances." For bidding purposes, shall bidders assume that utilities beneath existing fixed pier will be abandoned in place or removed to shore…?

Direction in this section is adequate and bidder shall interpret at will.

80 1/10/2024 101

14-

1909923_WLB

Mooring and

Structural Pier Upgrades_FINAL

14 NOV 23

Section 01800

1.9.1.1.1.4

At Fixed Pier G, RFP indicates "The Contractor shall demolish all utility stations (electrical, water, and sewer) and appurtenances." For bidding purposes, shall bidders assume structural infill of existing pier deck at those locations…?

Alternatively, would the Government allow reuse of these spaces for placement of new utilities...?

See amendment language 006

81 1/10/2024 5 of 21

70Z04724RPCNI

0002 RFP

Description of the work

Base Item 0001

Base Item 0001 in the Description of the Work says, "...complete demolition/disposal of the Station Annex (2,712 GSF)...". Where is this Station Annex building located, both on a map and described in documentation?

See RFI #25 005

82 1/10/2024 - General -

Due to the number of questions and the need for more specific information/answers to these questions, we kindly request a three week (21 calendar day) extension for this proposal. This would allow contractors to provide a more thorough response to the proposal requirements.

Proposal due date remains unchanged. 005

83 1/10/2024 1800 1.11 Please confirm no plumbing utilities are associated with this project (fixed pier and floating dock). Past projects associated with the specified vessels have included a plumbing scope.

See 1800 1.4 Civil and Site Work Design for water system requirements, see also RFP drawing notes on drawing C201.

84 1/10/2024 1800 1.18 From review of the environmental package received, it appears the limited effort completed to date was performed nearly a decade ago. Is there any more recent documentation available?

(MAW) The new EA is under preparation, which incorporates elements of the 2015 EA, and a public Draft EA is expected in March 2023. A preliminary Draft will be provided to bidders when available. This EA will primarily validate the effects and conclusions seen in the attached 2015/2016 documents. The USCG is also finalizing consultations and

85 1/10/2024 1800 1.18

For acquisition of the in-water work authorizations and permits, does the USCG anticipate obtaining authorization from the state and local agencies? Or, is it anticipated that the USCG, as a federal entity, is exempt and will act as a lead agency in the permitting process?

(MAW) Neither assumption is true. As laid out in RFP Specification 1800.1.18, the successful bidder will be responsible for obtaining permits, authorizations, and maintaining compliance with all applicable environmental requirements

86 1/10/2024 1800 1.18 Has the USCG engaged any agencies regarding mitigation measures and/or fees? Will fees be addressed as a change order at a later date?

(MAW) The USCG is currently consulting with NOAA regarding requirements for relocation of potentially affected coral communities at the project location. After an agreement in principle is reached, the successful bidder is responsible for developing and executing a coral relocation plan. Other standard in-water protection measures for marine species would also be the responsibility of the awardee to plan and execute. any additional monetary or off-site mitigation requirements that arise during the project would be considered a changed site condition.

87 1/10/2024 1800 1.9 Please provide as-built documents associated with the existing floating dock structure.

The requested data is not available. 005

88 1/10/2024 1800 1.5 Please provide pile driving logs from Wharf Golf construction. The requested data is not available. 005

89 1/10/2024 1800 1.9 Please advise if the contractor shall assume jetting for the removal of piling will be allowed.

The Contractor's methods shall be at their discretion, however, their methods shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements.

90 1/10/2024 1800 1.5 Please provide pile as-builts (pile lengths) from the construction of Wharf Golf and the floating dock.

The requested data is not available. 005

91 1/10/2024 1800 1.8 1.8.9.12.2

It is noted in the RFP that the government desires concrete-filled, steel pipe guide piles for this project. Please confirm if steel piles are desired for all piling on this project, or just the floating dock guide piles.

Floating dock guide piles only. 005

92 1/10/2024 1800 1.18

The EA and SEA provided by the USCG identify a preferred alternative of NSC Mooring at Berths A/B and D. Does the USCG anticipate that additional NEPA analysis will be required for the switch to a different alternative? If so, what is the anticipated timeline for completion of supplemental assessment?

(MAW) A revised EA with other consultation efforts is underway, focusing on Berths F/G. The older EAs are merely provided as background material on environmental conditions in the project area. The scope of the project remains as described in the RFP.

93 1/10/2024 1800 1.18 Please provided the Biological Assessment and NMFS consultation documentation described in the EA and SEA.

(MAW) The USCG is currently conducting new consultations with NMFS, to include IHA authorization applications. The USCG may share draft versions of these documents as references if they are deemed reasonably accurate by February 2024. However, NMFS authorization review will likely continue after that point.

94 1/10/2024 1800 1.18 Has the USCG initiated discussions with NMFS regarding the potential need for an Incidental Harassment Authorization? If so, please share that consultation.

(MAW) The USCG is currently conducting new consultations with NMFS, to include IHA authorization applications. The USCG may share draft versions of these documents as references if they are deemed reasonably accurate by February 2024. However, NMFS authorization review will likely continue after that point.

95 1/10/2024 1800 1.13 Current lead times for stainless steel electrical boxes can be in excess of 24 months. Please confirm any acceptable material alternatives to stainless steel NEMA 4X electrical boxes.

Substitutions are not authorized. (ESC) 005

96 1/10/2024 16 RFP

Can the government clarify the page limit for Factor 5?

Subfactor 5.1 says no more than 10 pages, but under paragraph

a) the page limit is identified as no more than 3 pages.

Subfactors 5.2 and 5.3 identify no more than 3 pages for each subfactor. Please consider allowing an overall page limit of 10 pages for all of Factor 5 rather than limiting the pages per subsection.

See amendment language 005

97 1/10/2024 General

Will the government consider extending the proposal due date a minimum of 2 weeks after responses have been provided for all questions? This will allow contractors sufficient time to review and incorporate all Q&A responses into our proposals and pricing once all questions have been answered.

Proposal due date remains unchanged. 005

98 1/12/2024 3 of 13 1.18.2

Suggest rewording row 15. RFP indicates USCG is preparing another SEA for changes in project scope and site conditions and will include the new consultation efforts into this RFP.

When are these expected as the permitting for this project is expected to drive much of the project schedule?

All currently available consultation efforts have been shared with bidders through Amendment 006. NMFS consultation documentation will provide the greatest insight into required mitigation and oversight measures regarding biological resources.

However, it is the awardee's responsibility under this RFP to apply their expertise and determine and execute permitting needs, and not depend on a predetermined list from the

USCG. (MAW)

99 1/12/2024 3 of 13 1.18.2 RFP indicates USCG is preparing another SEA and is initiating new consultation efforts. Is the USCG progressing the consultation beyond the SEA to LOA/LOC or IHA?

(MAW) Yes, the USCG is concurrently working on IHA and mitigation agreements for impacts to marine mammal, fisheries, and coral species.

100 1/12/2024 Does the EFH Assessment need to be updated as part of the updated SEA?

(MAW) Yes, the USCG is concurrently working on IHA and mitigation agreements for impacts to marine mammal, fisheries, and coral species.

Bidders do not need to complete this effort.

101 1/12/2024 01800 1.4 1.4.1.2

Section 01800 1.4.1.2 references a hydrographic survey, but no details are noted. Please provide as hydrographic survey data available as it does not appear any was included in the RFP package.

RFP Specification 01800-1.4.1.2 identifies that the Hydrographic survey is NIC or Not-In-Contract. The Hydrographic data requested is not available.

102 1/12/2024 01800 1.8 1.8.1 Please provide a full as-built drawing of the Wharf G structure. The requested data is not available. 005

103 1/12/2024 01800 1.8 1.8.9.3

In section 1800, paragraph 1.8.9.3 states: “Each dock section shall be independently moored by guide pile such that any one dock could be removed from service, if necessary.” This is not possible with a Post-Tensioned dock system where the entire dock is one contiguous structural unit. Please revise language to reflect this type of manufactured dock system.

See amendment language 006

104 1/12/2024 01800 1.8 1.8.9.5

In section 1800, paragraph 1.8.9.5 states: “Freeboard under dead load plus 100 psf live load shall not be less that 15 + 2 inches. Freeboard under dead load including permanently installed equipment, utilities, gangways, or resulting list shall not exceed 31 +2 inches.” These values are physically inconsistent. 15” + (19” freeboard loss due to 100 psf) = 34” design load freeboard. Please advise as to what freeboard levels are desired in both dead and live loaded states.

See amendment language 006

105 1/12/2024 01800 1.8 1.8.6

Similar to the second RFI list above: section 1800, paragraph

1.8.6 in the “Dock Free-Board” sub-section - These values are physically inconsistent. 15” + (19” freeboard loss due to 100 psf) = 34” design load freeboard. Please advise as to what freeboard levels are desired in both dead and live loaded states.

See amendment language 006

106 1/15/2024 10 of 13 1800_1.8_Structu ral 1.8.11

Section 1800, para 1.8.11, Line 1.8.11.2.1 says “three (6) 30 ton single bollards type B". See amendment language 005

107 1/16/2024 1800_1.13_Electr ical

Is a single line diagram of the existing electrical distribution system available? The portions of greatest concern is from the utility transformer through the “Powerhouse” to the isolation transformer to Doghouse G, and from Doghouse G to all of its loads. Also desired is the portion from the utility transformer serving Berth F to its power mound including all devices and equipment enroute.

Electrical as builts are provided in amendment 006; see attachments

108 1/16/2024 1800_1.13_Electr ical Confirm that the existing Berth F power mound is powered at 480 volts, three phase

Cannot confirm the exact voltage at power mound.

109 1/16/2024 1800_1.16_Telec ommunication

1.16.2.1 &

1.16.5.6

Please describe the location of the “Smith Building”. The location noted in the specification paragraphs 01800, 1.16.2.1 and 1.16.5.6 do not match the map provided with the RFP. Also describe the existing conduit route to Berth G.

In amendment 006, there is a base map PDF "Base Map_FG", It shows the location of the Smith Building for coordination. Cannot describe the existing conduit routes. Contractor will be responsible for surveying project site.

Document ISCcopperOSP has also been added to the amendment for assistance.

see amendment 006.

110 1/16/2024 1800_1.16_Telec ommunication 1.16.6.3

Describe the telecommunications facilities at Location 17 per specification paragraph 01800, 1.16.6.3.

Contractor is responsible for surveying construction area during the design period.

111 1/16/2024

Solicitation Section VI. Non-

Price Factors;

Section VI. Basis of Evaluation

Factor 4.3, "Technical Approach to Safety," Solicitation has a specific page limitation. As part of this proposal submittal, we are to submit DART and TRIR data for each of the companies which comprise our Joint Venture.

As this safety data will take up significant space which might otherwise be used to detail other aspects of our Safety Management System, we respectfully request that the DART and TRIR data be excluded from the page limitation.

In accordance with the RFP, please look at page 18 Non-Price Factor 4.

11…